Now this isn't a thread criticising the kid as he's clearly the most exciting thing St Helens has produced since I've been watching the game. He is an outstanding natural talent with the kind of freakish abilities that we have always lack compared to the Inglis', Slaters in the NRL. But where we play him seems to be one of the topics for debate in the league papers this week. Stevo and Schofield in particular wrote about how they don't see him working out as a scrum half, particularly when paired with another player who's game is based on running the ball. Stevo was very critical of him, saying he was static and is far too predictable to be a threat, although that could be said of our entire team at the moment.

Kyle Eastmond was by far our most dangerous player last season, the majority of it from left centre. Can you imagine how good that kid could be at fullback? Chiming into the line, returning kicks into broken field etc. It's mouthwatering.

This season I don't think we have much choice as we let Smiffy go, but do you see Kyle as a 7 long term? I'd love to see him given a go at fullback.

Its a very good point, but his can he tackle like wello? i doubt it. I think he will make it at 7, and Stevo made a good point about him being wasted as the first receiver, when he should be the 2nd. KC, roby or moore should be first, then kyle so he can either 1) pass it to a prop/ big runner 2) put a kick in, 3) scoot himself, 4) long pass out wide. at the moment he is only got the choice to pass it really with the slow ptb

I see your point, but if we moved every young half back to another position every time they didn't boss a team in their first game as first choice, we'd never have any half backs.

He can pass, he can kick. He's done it through the youth ranks. His passing and kicking has created tries at international level. He isn't just a runner, no matter what Stevo thinks.

I say leave him at 7 and be patient.

I think Kyle is an awesome talent but I have consistently believed he is not an organiser. I think where he plays ultimately will depend upon (a) whether leading the pack around the park is in fact a learned skill or whether it is something inborn which needs developing and/or (b) whether someone else can be the organiser for Saints if Kyle does not learn how to organise but is still playing at 7. For this season, since we appear to have committed to him playing at 7, we could follow Leeds' model and have an organising 13. But either way I think Stevo was right: Kyle was too static on Saturday and until the final 10 minutes, as a result, his potent threat was totally nullified by Hull. Stevo was also right on Friday night during the red button show when he said he hoped Potter wouldn't be 'daft enough' to limit Kyle, believing instead that he should be set free to roam. I agree entirely with that view. Kyle's talent, pace and excellent kicking game are all put to best use when he can move all over the park. I think that is why we saw him at his best during the Grand Final and also when the game plan was abandoned in the second half of the international against Australia at Wigan. He was a free spirit and that's what he needs to be.

I don't know whether fullbacks have a kicking game? I can't say I've noticed. But if they don't then he shouldn't play at fullback because when he gets it right, his in-field kicking is amazing.

There isnt a single scrum half out there that knew the A-Z of organisation at 20 years old. That comes with experience.
Kyle has already shown the ability in patches to instinctively read when a killer pass is on and put in good kicks.
What he has to do though is learn to do this more consistently, and he will only learn this through playing in the halves over a number of seasons.

As for playing fullback, yes he would be great counter attacking, however his lack of stature would imo be exploited mercilessly by opposition coaches.
Now im not saying a fullback needs to be a giant, but they cant afford to give too many inches away against fellow backs.

I've said on our board today that i'd love to see him given a shot at fullback for England. I don't say that because i don't think he can cut it at 7 for St Helens but at international level we really miss the sort of threat he could bring from that position. We also have other options at 7 in Myler and Brough who I believe would both do a pretty good job.

He could do with a pressure release at Saints though imo. Like I said I think he can easily make it at 7 but he could do with a halfback partner that in the short term at least would take the responsibility of bossing the side around the field and doing the majority of the kicking.

I'm just gald we seem to have sorted something like that out for Tomkins in Deacon. He may be a year or 2 past his best but he brings exactly the sort of abilities our side needs at the moment.

Stevo hasn't said he is 'just a runner'. Far from it.

Personally I just think we need another organiser this season. It won't work having nobody organising. Someone needs to organise and Potter needs to choose that person and get them organising. Kyle can then take on more of the organising role as the season progresses, unless he really cannot organise (and some people cannot) in which case the situation will need to be reviewed.

Pryce is never going to organise so either we change our stand off and have his replacement be the organiser or have an organiser at loose or follow the Leeds' model until our 7 can do the job all by himself.

I take it you didn't read his column in this weeks League Express then!

We have another young scrum half at the club in Ellis who fits the more traditional idea of a 7 but I think to move Kyle after1 game of the seaon would be a mistake. I think Kyle needs a good partner though and that sadly is not Leon Pryce. People forget that when we signed Longy he was a standoff and a 'runner' but he matured into a great scrumhalf - the big difference was of course that he had Tommy at 6 to help him

I think Kyle has all the attribute to be a great 7. I truley believe that people can't psycologically get past thet fact that its possible to have both pace and a passing game - probably brought on by seeing too many one dimensional players in that position.

correct !

I've put all his comments together. From what Stevo has said, Kyle should be freed up to cause havoc, not limited to being first receiver! But not because he is [ijust[/i a runner. Yes, he is a runner - and much more besides. Taking all Stevo's comments put together that is what he thinks too.

But by moving him away from first receiver to not "limit" him, you are in fact limiting him massively because he will never develop his game in his preferred position.

It's a knee jerk Stevo-ism to a quiet performance. No doubt he said the same about Long in his early days, now he'll bang on about what a great organiser he is. Long didn't develop his game at stand off or full back, he developed it by playing 7.

For a start off it may be his preferred position but it may not be the right position for him (thinking Pryce there). Time will tell on that one. Secondly, you don't drop someone in it without any assistance. Someone else needs to take the lead until he has found his feet organisationally. As he finds his feet the other person takes steps back until such time as he can take on the whole role.


Rubbish. Kyle played exactly the same way last season when in the 7 spot during Longy's absence. He was put at first receiver and went quiet. When not at first receiver he is better able to put himself in a position where he can do damage. That's what we need him to do: damage. Someone else can distribute the ball meanwhile.

Have your say, but throwing around "clueless", "idiot" and "rubbish" at me for expressing an opinion does you no favours.

From memory Kyle started 3 games at 7 last year:

Warrington away - stars, win, 40 points scored.
Quins away - stars, win, 44 points scored.
Wigan at home - stars, win, match winning try.

You may say that he didn't do damage in those games, I would disagree. I won't call you clueless, an idiot or your opinion rubbish though.

There may have been other starts at 7 that I have missed, and I'll be happy to reconsider if there are.

I don't care what your opinion of my posts is. Has that not registered with you yet?

I'm not arguing a point about which I do not have the information to hand.

I would like to know who was first receiver in those games and if it was Kyle, whether he remained in that role for the whole of each match.

I have not said that Kyle hasn't caused damage for us. I have said that I believe he causes damage when allowed to roam free. I believe that's where his skill lies.

You think he's at his best when he's free to roam, yet you think he was at his best in the Grand Final when he played centre? Is there a position where he is less able to roam than centre?

On a general point on the thread (so SF doesn't think this is a dig at her as has happened in the past), he has the ability to organise, he just needs the experience. I do agree that he needs another player to take the pressure off him though, preferably at 6, and at the moment Pryce isn't cutting the mustard.

You can roam at centre if you want to so long as you don't neglect your duties. He played very well at centre I thought but then he was free to spot opportunities and exploit them (he was the only one capable of it so far as I could see). The point is: he was free. He wasn't overburdened by responsibility.


Well, while I've yet to be convinced of his ability to organise, I'm just trying to come to terms with you agreeing with me over something.

I'm in shock.

Where's the Southern Comfort ...

I think this is the key point, when longy started properly in the first team he had Tommy god to take alot of the pressure off him, Kyle is getting nothing from Pryce

I thought you are a RL coach? A centre cant "roam" they have to stay in their channel! where was this coaching course of yours?

Well, I did say flippantly so long as you don't neglect your duties! I was being silly because I'm weary of having the points I make distorted and picked at unnecessarily.

Billinge Lump knew very well what I meant as was evidenced by what he said next. He also happens to agree with my position: Kyle needs support in the organising of things. Now I am yet to be convinced of Kyle's ability to organise, a view which BL doesn't share with me. But there really was no need to pull apart my statement in the way he did. It's wearying.

PS: RFL level 1. I'm just a baby coach. But I said that when I first mentioned my course.

It's only wearying if you make your points too forcefully. I love your enthusiasm for Saints and love that you're keen to get involved in coaching etc. But I do think you sometimes state things with absolute certainty, sometimes rubbishing other opinions, then refusing to give an inch when someone points out that something may not be quite as clear cut as you believe it to be. If you did, it wouldn't be at all wearying - it would be a conversation.

Anyway, good luck with the courses.

i think what the lump was saying is that he has more space to roam at 7 than a centre, or as saddened says in the initial question much more at fullback than any position, but for me he isnt big enough for full back, can you imagine Ryan hall breaking through with only kyle to runover? it wouldnt be pretty!
We only have to see how he combined with Tompkins in the world cup to see he has the class, but needs his 6 to do something, anything to help him except stand around like a lost soul!

Fair enough. Point taken. I will try to modify the way I express my opinion.

(No sarcasm there incidentally)